David Von Pein

Jean Hill and Roger Craig didn't start to lie until much later. They told the truth initially about what they saw and heard. Hill was truthful on Day 1 when she said she heard shots coming from the Knoll. (She was mistaken, of course, but she wasn't lying.) And Craig was truthful about seeing somebody get in a Rambler. It just couldn't have been Oswald. But his "7.65 Mauser was stamped on the rifle" lie didn't crop up until years later -- certainly well after 1968, which is when Craig told the LA Free Press that he had no idea what type of gun it was.

Yes, of course: "Von Pein's position apparently is, "Everyone lies...especially CT'ers...but NO ONE lied to the Warren Commission [unless their testimony might cast doubt on Oswald's guilt...then every word they said was a lie]."" I've never once said anyone lied to the Warren Commission (not even any "conspiracy" witnesses). The only two people (i.e., witnesses) I've ever called "liars" are Jean Hill and Roger Craig. But even they didn't lie to the Warren Commission. Their provable lies didn't manifest themselves until years later.

Mark's funny too.

You're funny, Greg. (In a much to-do about nothing respect, that is.)

Beats me. I don't know. Maybe he was a bastard and mistreated her. I have no idea. And neither do you. But I do know that official divorce documents such as the one you cited earlier include some rather commonplace and over-the-top language, such as "mental cruelty", etc. It's probably more of a "form" document, to an extent, in terms of some of the terms that are used in those types of court documents, versus anything that Mrs. Paine specifically had written about her husband. But I really don't know (or care). That's typical CT Think -- black is white and up is down. Defending anything about a JFK conspiracy theorist is something I rarely do. So, don't worry.

You're being ridiculous, Greg, and you know it. When I said "Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything", I was referring to the JFK murder case, not her divorce papers (which are always riddled with overstatements like "mental cruelty" and "anguish", etc.). You can't possibly be serious when you drag out the language utilized in an official divorce document...can you Greg? I will say -- if that's the best you've got to show that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine was a "wicked woman" and a xxxx, then I don't have anything to worry about here at all. (And neither does Ruth.)

You're reaching, Greg. But I love it when CTers try to make Ruth Paine out to be a wicked woman who was trying to frame poor schnook Oswald. Hilarious stuff there. And you should read some of the vile, unprintable things that the kooks say about Ruth in the comments section on my YouTube videos. You'd think she was Hitler, the Devil, and Norman Bates all rolled into one. It's despicable.

Please point me to any such claim that Ruth Paine made about Quakers and liars. I don't recall Ruth ever making such a claim. Sorry, it wasn't. Because I think they belonged there. Sorry, I thought it was clear enough. The whole topic is a moot one anyway -- because Ruth Paine didn't lie about anything. http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

What "claim" by Ruth are you referring to, Greg?

No. Question for Ray Mitcham: Why did you ask that question? Footnote---- It's kind of interesting that you'd ask such a question at this time, because just three days ago I re-posted a humorous Internet post that was written by someone at Wim Dankbaar's CT House, which touches on that very subject (maybe that's why Ray asked me the question today): "Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone for a loop, his plan exactly. According to my findings he is very well educated. One university he likely either attended or taught maybe both was a Quaker college, Guilford. Remember he was from the town that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana, a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family knew Ruth Paine. He may have set on her lap? Now since he is found out, he has decided to come out of the closet as far as his picture. We already knew what he looked like. He thrives on controversy because it keeps everyone off guard. I suspect he is a disinfo agent." -- "Dealey Joe"; August 3, 2010 Original post from Dankbaar's CT crazy house (just so nobody thinks I made up the screwball quote I just posted above): http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1291&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p27560 ---------- Here's my response that I wrote in 2010 [with some of the deserved invective removed; I don't want Pat Speer to jump all over me here at the moderated forum]: "The above post by "Dealey Joe" is another example of how conspiracy theorists will, to quote Vincent Bugliosi, "leap from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions". Here's how Dealey Joe came to the grand conclusion that my "family knew Ruth Paine" (which I guess, if true, must mean my mom and dad were in cahoots with Mrs. Paine in a plot to frame Oswald in 1963): In a blog I created in 2009 about Ruth Paine (located at http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com), I discuss a rather strange and interesting coincidence that occurred in the summer of 1963: Mrs. Paine visited some friends in my hometown of Richmond, Indiana (Ruth had also attended a Quaker conference at Earlham College in Richmond back in 1947, which happened to be the very first "Young Friends" conference she ever attended). I remarked in my blog that I thought that was a rather strange coincidence for a key person in the JFK-assassination saga to have at least a few ties to my own hometown in eastern Indiana, which is a pretty small town. So, apparently from those comments that I made about this "connection" between myself, my hometown of Richmond, and Ruth Paine, "Dealey Joe" has leaped to the grand conclusion that my family and Ruth knew each other. And Joe also has concluded that I attended (or taught at) a Quaker university too. Dealey Joe's investigative skills are a perfect example of why the conspiracy community has been having trouble solving the JFK murder -- i.e.: the community is populated with [--bleep--] when it comes to the topic of the assassination of President Kennedy. Anyway, to keep Dealey Joe's illusion of me alive, I'll be sure to give Ruth Paine a call tonight. She'll want to know that crackerjack researchers like Dealey Joe have finally unearthed the sinister "Von Pein/Paine" connection. (Hey, even our names are similar. Maybe Joe can work that fact into his next theory.) I also want to remind Ruth to never travel anywhere ever again. Because if she does, she is bound to stop in a town that has as one of its residents a 2-year-old boy who will have an interest in the JFK murder case in the year 2040. And a deep "connection" like that will be impossible for any LNer to deny." -- DVP; 8/10/2010 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e0e78cb13aae6772 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6464.msg164316.html#msg164316

So? Humes knew where the location of the back wound was. And he also knew where the location of the trach incision was. He can, therefore, make a good judgment (even 24-48 hours later) as to whether the upper-back wound was higher or lower than the throat wound. And, btw, I've always stated that the biggest (and stupidest) error made by the Warren Commission was when they decided to not make the autopsy pictures and X-rays readily available for the staff members to properly see and evaluate. But even without full access to those photos and X-rays, the WC did a fine job at arriving at the truth in the case -- including the "SBT truth".

I'm not arguing that the bullet didn't come darn close to the lung. Of course it came awfully close to it. The lung itself was bruised by the passage of the bullet. That's a fact. And another fact is this: That lung was not penetrated or damaged beyond just "bruising". And the pleura cavity was also bruised, but it was not struck or torn open by the bullet either. Those are facts. Undeniable facts. (Unless you want to call the autopsy doctors liars.) In my own opinion (which you are free to ignore if you wish), you, Mr. Gordon, are very likely attempting to micro-analyze the President's wounds (and their precise location in relation to the major organs of the body) in a fashion that probably cannot be done via standard schematics and charts and diagrams, etc. I'm not saying that JFK's bodily organs and ribcage weren't located in the general locations where the standard anatomical charts place those organs and ribs, but I think we probably can agree that every human being is physically different in one way or another from other human beings. One such example being: the precise location of JFK's mastoid process behind his right ear. When compared to another human being with a slightly different physique and build and neck length (etc.), if we were to measure 14cm. down from the tip of the mastoid process, we would likely get different results from person to person, with any "wound" located in the upper back being slightly lower or higher on the back depending upon that person's physical features. Would you agree with me, James, on the above evaluation? Each individual is unique in many ways. And attempting to make JFK's specific wound locations fit into the mold of a standard anatomical chart is, in my opinion, a potential mistake on the part of the person performing such an evaluation. Now, yes, James, maybe JFK's body perfectly fits and matches every anatomy chart and diagram you'd care to post at this forum. Could be. I don't know for sure. But human beings being what they are--different from one another in a variety of very subtle ways--don't you think there might be room for some doubt about your conclusion that there was no way for a single bullet to have passed through President Kennedy's body in the manner suggested by the Single-Bullet Theory? And my last question is particularly relevant and logical since we know for a fact that the lung that you say would be hit by the SBT bullet was in fact bruised by the passage of a bullet that was inside JFK's body. So we're really only talking about a very small difference in the measurements here. I.E., the small difference between a bullet actually hitting JFK's right lung vs. a bullet passing so close to that lung that it caused bruising of the lung. Is that very small difference enough to make you totally discount the notion that the bullet didn't strike the right lung of John Kennedy, but merely passed very close to it? In Summary: Regardless of your charts and diagrams and supreme knowledge of anatomy, this FACT remains: The bullet that went into JFK's upper back did not directly strike the lungs and did not strike any other bony structure within the body. And this additional fact also remains (which is a very important fact that deserves to be pointed out at least once a day to the anti-SBT crowd on the Internet): No bullets or large bullet fragments were found inside JFK's body. So, James, since you think the SBT is bunk, please tell me what you think happened with regards to the bullet(s) that entered John F. Kennedy's upper torso on 11/22/63? How did one or more bullets manage to enter JFK's upper body, never exit, and yet cause no major damage (other than bruises) to the areas of the body that were violated by the bullet or bullets? After all, even without a "Single-Bullet Theory" and even without a "CE399", President Kennedy was injured by at least one rifle bullet in the upper back and neck regions on November 22nd, 1963. And in my view, the SBT fits like a glove. Whereas, any non-SBT theory reeks with far more speculation and uncertainties (and, of course, vanishing bullets) than does the single-bullet scenario.

And yet we find Humes saying this to the Warren Commission anyway, don't we Pat?: "The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." Do you think Humes just made that up--just to make Specter and McCloy happy? Here's the same quote by Dr. Humes, with other comments surrounding it, which puts the quote in better context [at 2 H 368]: Mr. McCLOY - Now directing your attention to the flight of the bullet, quite apart from the evidence given by the President's clothing, you, I believe, indicated that the flight of the bullet was from the back, from above and behind. It took roughly the line which is shown on your Exhibit 385. Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY - I am not clear what induced you to come to that conclusion if you couldn't find the actual exit wound by reason of the tracheotomy. Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation. The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir. Mr. McCLOY - That is what I wanted to bring out. Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.

The Very Bottom Line--- No one will ever be able to fight the overall logic and common sense of the Single-Bullet Theory. That logic and common sense will always be there, even after the members of this forum are long gone from this world. And even with the craziness of the HSCA's "throat wound is higher" declaration; and even with the wholly inaccurate CE386 staring us in the face (and I'll readily admit that the wounds depicted in CE386 below are not accurate at all--including the head entry wound)....the SBT is still by far the most logical and reasonable solution to the double-man wounding of JFK and John Connally on 11/22/63. And that logic and reasoned thinking is expressed very nicely in the Walter Cronkite quote shown at the bottom of this post. Therefore, seeing as how there were indeed some men on the Warren Commission and HSCA who knew how to utilize a tiny bit of common sense when asking themselves the key question of "Where could that bullet have gone?", then both of those committees (the WC and the HSCA) were pretty much forced, via common sense and logic alone, to arrive at the following conclusions (with CBS News mirroring the WC's common sense regarding the SBT in 1967): ------------------------- "The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. .... There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head, and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. .... Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission." -- HSCA Final Report; Pages 43-44 ------------------------- "Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace. Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace. Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available. In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally." -- Walter Cronkite; "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report"; June 1967

Total nonsense. The HSCA utilized the photos, the X-rays, the "14 cm." autopsy measurements, and the testimony of the autopsists. And the Warren Commission staff knew where the wounds were located too (even without full access to the autopsy pictures and X-rays). They had the face sheet, and the WC also had this important testimony of Dr. Humes: "The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly." Yes, it's true that the HSCA did come to the stupid conclusion about the throat wound being higher than the back wound (which is a conclusion that is in complete contradiction with the sworn WC testimony that I just quoted above of JFK's leading autopsy surgeon, Dr. Humes), but that wasn't a situation where anyone ELSE was "misleading" the FPP on that issue. They came to that stupid conclusion themselves. But the bottom-line is: BOTH the WC and HSCA concluded that one single bullet did go through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. And that is a conclusion that is buttressed by a bunch of other stuff, including the Zapruder Film, the lack of any other bullets (besides CE399) to account for any of the wounds in either victim, the detailed re-enactment of the crime done by the WC in May '64, plus just plain ordinary "Where Could The Bullet Have Gone?" common sense. Toss all of that in the trash if you want to. I won't do it. Because the SBT is so obviously the truth. But Cyril Wecht doesn't dispute the first half of the Single-Bullet Theory. That is, Wecht thinks just a single bullet DID pass through Kennedy's body, with that bullet exiting JFK's throat. And that's the main topic being dissected by James R. Gordon in this thread. Mr. Gordon doesn't think it was possible for a bullet to have traversed JFK's body via the entry & exit wounds that we now have on the table via the autopsy face sheet, CE903, etc. But Dr. Wecht disagrees. He thinks a bullet did go through JFK. The remainder of Wecht's anti-SBT analysis is nothing but pure guesswork, plus there are his continued illogical efforts to prop up the WC test bullets as some kind of proof that the SBT is baloney, even though Wecht has got to know that none of those test bullets even attempted to duplicate the SBT at all -- with none of those bullets travelling through TWO bodies. It's still amazing to me, to this day, that Dr. Wecht cannot see the pitfalls and illogic of his theory concerning the test bullets. But, evidently he doesn't see those things.

But what hasn't gone over my head is the fact that BOTH of the official investigations (14 years apart) concluded that one bullet (CE399) passed through JFK's body. That's a lot of people that have got to be dead wrong about a pretty important fact, James. Doesn't it bother you that all of those investigators who were tasked with arriving at the truth regarding the assassination of an American President would come to a conclusion that Bullet CE399 passed through JFK's body and wounded Governor Connally? How could they have come to that one-bullet conclusion if there weren't ample reasons for them to do so? Am I supposed to really just toss the SBT conclusions of both the WC and HSCA right in the garbage can because of your analysis? Really?

But measuring from the top of the head (as pathologists like Cyril Wecht say is the proper place to measure from) will also change depending on the body's position, because the head is always on a rotating and movable neck. So that "changing body position" argument won't fly just because the Bethesda doctors decided to measure the back wound from an unusual location (the mastoid). Logic would dictate that measurements that are taken at an autopsy are taken when the body is in the "anatomic/autopsy" position. And that would certainly include the JFK autopsy measurements as well.

I have no idea what you're talking about. All pictures of JFK at about the time he was shot show his coat to be bunched-up in the back, including the Croft picture taken at circa Z161. So, given the pictures which verify some degree of "bunching", I can't understand the beef that CTers still have regarding this issue.

You're misrepresenting the location of the back wound. It wasn't "entirely above the base of the neck". Why on Earth are you saying such an outlandish thing? The wound, in fact, was just where the Autopsy Face Sheet says it was -- 14 cm. below the mastoid, in the upper back...not in the neck. One of the big problems regarding the back wound, IMO, is not the place where the wound really was located. The bigger problem is merely the terminology that has been utilized by many of the people in Officialdom who have discussed the wound. The terms "neck", "base of the neck", "back", "upper back", "back of the neck", and "base of the back of the neck" have been used interchangably throughout the Warren Report and the witness testimony. This causes confusion when people read these varying terms. But, just as Wesley Liebeler said in 1966 on KCBS-Radio, the best way to determine where the wound was located is certainly not by examining the clothing of JFK. It's by looking at the autopsy photos and the measurements written into the margin of Dr. Boswell's Face Sheet. Moreover, the autopsy photo and the Face Sheet are in perfect harmony with the WC's own photographic re-creation regarding the place on JFK's body where the bullet entered--in the upper back, not up in the "neck"--as verified in Commission Exhibit No. 903. And since there's only ONE hole in the upper back (skin) of President Kennedy....and there's also only ONE hole in the shirt of JFK....and there's also only ONE hole in the jacket of JFK....then where can a person like Cliff Varnell really go with their theory about those three holes not lining up perfectly? Where does it really lead? It appears to me that there are only two possible places a person like Mr. Varnell can go: 1.) Make the claim that the autopsy photo shown above is a fake and a fraud. (Which it isn't, of course, as proven by the 20 or so members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel.) or: 2.) Make another unfounded claim about the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat being fake in some way. If there's a third choice here, I sure can't figure out what it might be.

For Cliff Varnell: Go to 12:30 of this video (the person talking at that time is WC counsel Wesley Liebeler): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7eNdyp8-g8 Complete Program: http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/defending-warren-commission-report.html

This seems like a good time to re-post a great quote from an LNer named "Bud" who hangs out at the acj Usenet newsgroup and punishes CTers relentlessly with his common sense: "The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

Brilliant assassination plot there, Gil. Shoot JFK with TWO "reloads with low powder charges". I guess the assassins just wanted to give their victim a fighting chance to survive the attack against him by using weak-sister bullets with "low powder charges" (TWO of them from TWO different guns, no less). As I said -- Brilliant!

I don't care if it was "the first time" or the 21st. The point is: IT CAN BE DONE. Period. Care to fine-tune things a little more, Jim? Why didn't you mention the fact that the CBS shooters weren't using Oswald's C2766 rifle? (Which, of course, they weren't.) I'm surprised you didn't mention that fact. Tomorrow's new gripe will be: The CBS gunmen didn't perform the test in the state of Texas on a Friday at noontime with the temperature 66 degrees.

The main point, though, regarding the 1967 CBS-TV rifle tests is this (which is something that no conspiracy theorist ever wants to say out loud): Via tests conducted after the JFK assassination, it WAS physically possible to hit a moving target 2 times out of 3 shots with a manual, bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the same height and distances that were experienced by the TSBD sniper on 11/22/63. Plus: In 1986, HSCA firearms expert Monty Lutz also duplicated Oswald's shooting performance. He actually beat Oswald's feat by a wide margin, although Lutz did not fire at a moving target (so that means most CTers will toss out Lutz' test right away, of course). But, nonetheless, in one of Lutz' tests, he hit all three spaced targets with three shots--and in just 3.6 seconds. And Lutz definitely did use a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for his tests (although Bugliosi does not stress that point in the book excerpt presented below). But the fact that Lutz did use a Carcano for his 1986 tests does come out during Lutz' televised testimony at the London trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" (see video at the bottom of this post). "Reclaiming History" excerpt: "The feasibility of anyone, including Oswald, firing with the requisite accuracy within a given period of time caused a flap prior to the trial in London. I had asked my firearms expert, Monty Lutz, to see if he could duplicate what Oswald did, and to put his test firing on film with audio. On June 13, 1986, in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, he fired at stationary targets located fifty-seven, seventy-two, and eighty-seven yards from him, and in one series of shots, and with the clock starting to run with the first shot, he hit all three targets in 3.6 seconds. On two of the series, he was able to squeeze off the second round in only 1.5 seconds after the first shot, though he missed the target. Associates of his from the Wisconsin Crime Lab filmed his test firing. A few weeks before the trial, the producer, Mark Redhead, called to say that his people had found a military range in Wales where they could substantially approximate the Dealey Plaza firing conditions and he wanted Lutz to attempt to duplicate what Oswald did on film for the jury. He felt the film test would be “sensational” for the trial. I agreed it would be, but I told him I was against it, and the reason was obvious. Lutz might have a bad day, and if he did, his inability to do what Oswald did could itself raise a reasonable doubt of Oswald’s guilt in the jury’s mind. It was just too much of a risk for me to take. Besides, I told Redhead, I already had a film of Lutz beating Oswald’s time which I intended to present to the jury. Redhead wasn’t too happy with this, wanting Lutz to do it “again” while being filmed by his people. We each agreed to think about the matter. Two days later he called back and said some union in England wouldn’t permit me to show my film at the trial because it was filmed in Wisconsin with nonunion people (as it turned out, when Redhead saw Lutz’s film he didn’t think it was of sufficient quality to show to the jury anyway), and he asked me again to let Lutz be filmed. I told him the best I could do was this: Let the defense get its own expert to fire over there in Wales. If he couldn’t duplicate what Oswald did, the defense would obviously call him to so testify. I was confident my cross-examination of the defense expert would neutralize whatever advantage the defense intended to gain by the failure. And I told Redhead that if the defense expert succeeded, the defense just as obviously would not call him as a witness, and I agreed not to call him either. So there was no way for the defense to lose, I said. But Redhead did not like my proposal. He was persistent and wanted Lutz to try to duplicate Oswald’s marksmanship and timing in Wales for the London jury. In the interim I had been talking to Lutz and he was eager to let London Weekend Television film his effort in Wales, being very confident he could repeat his Wisconsin expertise. Because of Redhead’s persistence and Lutz’s eagerness and confidence, and because I knew that if Lutz succeeded it would definitely help my case, I told Lutz I would not refuse to let him do it, but in all deference to his marksmanship ability, I was opposed to the British test and it was my professional advice and opinion that he not do it. Lutz said he would follow my advice, and that was the end of that. I did, however, have Lutz testify before the London jury about the test he took in Wisconsin and the results, without the accompanying film. (Testimony of Monty Lutz, Transcript of On Trial, July 24, 1986, pp.456–458)" -- Pages 341-342 of Endnotes in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (c.2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1Bh2W2CSJs